SECURITIZING SABOTAGE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION'S SECURITY STRATEGY: INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION FROM COUNTER-TERRORISM TO HYBRID THREATS

Abstract

This study analyzes how sabotage is defined, positioned, and addressed within the European Union’s (EU) security strategies through the lens of securitization theory. Unlike classical terrorism, sabotage is framed as an existential security threat, particularly targeting critical infrastructure, digital systems, and hybrid threats. Distinct from cyber-terrorism, which is ideologically driven, sabotage focuses on systematic infrastructure disruption, necessitating a multi-layered security regime involving institutions such as Europol, ENISA, and the Hybrid Fusion Cell. The study examines key EU documents, including the 2005 Counter-Terrorism Strategy, the European Programme for Critical Infrastructure Protection (EPCIP), and ENISA reports, alongside case studies such as the 2022 Nord Stream pipeline sabotage, attacks on France’s energy infrastructure, and cyber-sabotage campaigns during the Russia-Ukraine war. Findings indicate that while the EU has developed an advanced institutional framework to counter sabotage, challenges persist due to national sovereignty issues, limited intelligence sharing, and gaps in democratic oversight. Recommendations include enhanced intelligence coordination, AI-based early warning systems, mandatory private sector compliance, and reforms focused on human rights.

Keywords

• European Union
• Sabotage
• Fight Against Terrorism
• Hybrid Threats
• Securitization

SECURITIZING SABOTAGE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION'S SECURITY STRATEGY: INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION FROM COUNTER-TERRORISM TO HYBRID THREATS

Abstract

Bu çalışma, Avrupa Birliği'nin (AB) güvenlik stratejileri içinde sabotajın nasıl tanımlandığını, konumlandırıldığını ve ele alındığını, güvenlikleştirme teorisi merceğinden analiz etmektedir. Klasik terörizmin aksine, sabotaj özellikle kritik altyapıyı, dijital sistemleri ve hibrit tehditleri hedefleyen varoluşsal bir güvenlik tehdidi olarak çerçevelenmektedir. İdeolojik olarak motive edilen siber terörizmden farklı olarak, sabotaj sistematik altyapı aksamalarını hedef alır ve Europol, ENISA ve Hybrit Fusion Cell gibi kurumları içeren çok katmanlı bir güvenlik rejimini gerektirir. Çalışma, 2005 Terörle Mücadele Stratejisi, Kritik Altyapı Koruması için Avrupa Programı (EPCIP) ve ENISA raporları gibi kilit AB belgelerini, 2022 Kuzey Akım boru hattı sabotajı, Fransa'nın enerji altyapısına yönelik saldırılar ve Rusya-Ukrayna savaşı sırasında siber sabotaj kampanyaları gibi vaka çalışmalarıyla birlikte incelemektedir. Bulgular, AB'nin sabotajla mücadele için gelişmiş bir kurumsal çerçeve geliştirmiş olmasına rağmen, ulusal egemenlik sorunları, sınırlı istihbarat paylaşımı ve demokratik denetimdeki boşluklar nedeniyle zorlukların devam ettiğini göstermektedir. Öneriler arasında gelişmiş istihbarat koordinasyonu, yapay zeka tabanlı erken uyarı sistemleri, özel sektörün zorunlu uyumu ve insan haklarına odaklanan reformlar yer alıyor.

Keywords

• Avrupa Birliği
• Sabotaj
• Terörle Mücadele
• Hibrit Tehditler
• Güvenlikleştirme

References

1. Akgül-Açıkmeşe, S. (2015). Avrupa Birliği’nin dış ve güvenlik politikaları. In B. Akçay (Ed.), Türkiye-AB ilişkileri: Yeni açılımlar (pp. 79–90). Seçkin Yayıncılık.
2. Akgül-Açıkmeşe, S. (2023). Güvenlik, güvenlik çalışmaları ve güvenlikleştirme. In Küresel siyasete giriş: Uluslararası ilişkilerde kavramlar, teoriler, süreçler (pp. 241–257). İletişim Yayınları.
3. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Harvard University Press.
4. Balzacq, T. (Ed.). (2011). Securitization theory: How security problems emerge and dissolve. Routledge.
5. Borchert, H., & Pankratz, T. (2004). Homeland security aus europäischer Perspektive. In H. Borchert (Ed.), Weniger Souveränität – mehr Sicherheit: Schutz der Heimat im Informationszeitalter und die Rolle der Streitkräfte (pp. 17–38). Mittler.
6. Bossong, R. (2008). The action plan on combating terrorism: A flawed instrument of EU security governance. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 46(1), 27–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2007.00766.x
7. Bures, O. (2006). EU counterterrorism policy: A paper tiger? Terrorism and Political Violence, 18(1), 57–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546550500174905
8. Buzan, B., Wæver, O., & de Wilde, J. (2013). Security: A new framework for analysis. Lynne Rienner Publishers. Carlisle, R. P. (2004). Scientific American inventions and discoveries. John Wiley & Sons.

9. Carrapico, H., & Barrinha, A. (2017). The EU as a coherent (cyber)security actor? JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 55(6), 1254–1272. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12575
10. Carrera, S., Marco, S., Chun Luk, N., & Vosyliūtė, L. (2018). The future of the Schengen area: Latest developments and challenges in the Schengen governance framework. European Parliament. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2018/604943/IPOL_STU(2018)604943_EN.pdf
11. Christou, G. (2016). Cybersecurity in the EU. Palgrave Macmillan.
12. Council of the European Union, General Secretariat of the Council. (2009). European security strategy: A secure Europe in a better world. Publications Office.
13. ENISA. (2025, February 27). A trusted and cyber secure Europe – ENISA strategy. https://www.enisa.europa.eu/publications/a-trusted-and-cyber-secure-europe-enisa-strategy
14. Euronews. (2022, September 28). “Sabotage” and “deliberate acts” suspected in mysterious Nord Stream leaks, EU says. https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2022/09/28/sabotage-and-deliberate-acts-suspected-in-mysterious-nord-stream-leaks-eu-says
15. European Commission. (n.d.). Hybrid threats. https://defence-industry-space.ec.europa.eu/eu-defence-industry/hybrid-threats_en
16. European Commission. (2006). European programme for critical infrastructure protection (EPCIP) (COM(2006) 786 final). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=LEGISSUM:l33260
17. European Commission. (2023, June 29). EU-NATO task force: Final assessment report on strengthening our resilience and protection of critical infrastructure. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/document/print/mt/ip_23_3564/IP_23_3564_EN.pdf
18. European Council. (2005). The EU counter-terrorism strategy. https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST%2014469%202005%20REV%204/EN/pdf
19. European External Action Service. (2024, March). Annual progress report: On the implementation of the Strategic Compass for security and defence. https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/2024/StrategicCompass_2ndYear_Report_0.pdf
20. European Parliament. (2021). Strategic or critical infrastructures, a way to interfere in Europe: State of play and recommendations. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/653637/EXPO_STU(2021)653637_EN.pdf
21. European Union Agency for Cybersecurity. (2022). ENISA threat landscape 2022: July 2021 to July 2022. Publications Office of the European Union.
22. Europol. (2025). European Counter Terrorism Centre (ECTC). https://www.europol.europa.eu/about-europol/european-counter-terrorism-centre-ectc
23. Farrand, B., & Carrapico, H. (2022). Digital sovereignty and taking back control: From regulatory capitalism to regulatory mercantilism in EU cybersecurity. European Security, 31(3), 435–453. https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2022.2102896
24. Galtung, J. (1990). Cultural violence. Journal of Peace Research, 27(3), 291–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343390027003005
25. Geropoulos, K. (2024). The plot thickens again for Nord Stream sabotage. New Europe. https://www.neglobal.eu/the-plot-thickens-again-for-nord-stream-sabotage/
26. Hybrid CoE. (n.d.). What is Hybrid CoE? https://www.hybridcoe.fi/who-what-and-how/
27. Kaunert, C. (2009). The external dimension of EU counter-terrorism relations: Competences, interests, and institutions. Terrorism and Political Violence, 22(1), 41–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546550903409551
28. Kuzemko, C., Keating, M. F., & Goldthau, A. (2016). The global energy challenge: Environment, development and security. Palgrave Macmillan.
29. Lijphart, A. (1971). Comparative politics and the comparative method. American Political Science Review, 65(3), 682–693. https://doi.org/10.2307/1955513
30. Monar, J. (2015). The EU as an international counter-terrorism actor: Progress and constraints. Intelligence and National Security, 30(2–3), 333–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/02684527.2014.988448
31. NATO. (2024, May 7). Countering hybrid threats. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_156338.htm Neocleous, M. (2022). Critique of security. Edinburgh University Press.
32. Occhipinti, J. D. (2017). Still moving toward a European FBI? Re-examining the politics of EU police cooperation. In J. Argomaniz, O. Bures, & C. Kaunert (Eds.), EU counter-terrorism and intelligence (pp. 234–258). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1080/02684527.2014.988449
33. Olech, A. (2025). Hybrid threats to critical infrastructure in the EU. Terroryzm, 2025(Special Issue), 133–158.
34. Scholten, D., & Bosman, R. (2016). The geopolitics of renewables: Exploring the political implications of renewable energy systems. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 103, 273–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.10.014
35. Waldmann, P. (2005). Terrorismus: Provokation der Macht (2., vollständig überarbeitete Aufl.). Murmann.
36. Weyembergh, A., & Brière, C. (2018). The future cooperation between OLAF and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. New Journal of European Criminal Law, 9(1), 62–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/2032284417743820
37. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Sage.